A Slippery Slope? November 2007 Ethics Moment

It is standard practice for developers to seek neighborhood support for rezoning property. Developers often agree to make improvements in the neighborhood or provide for mitigation when a project is potentially threatening to a neighborhood’s esthetics, traffic flow, or natural environment. Typically this is done through a public hearing process and mitigation is financially handled by an appropriate local government agency.

But what happens when Neighborhood Associations (NA) decide to “encourage” developers to provide them with cash considerations? Can developers become the “victims?” Possibly, maybe even absolutely.

Here’s what one developer who is building nearly100 homes in West Tampa has to say about cash deals: “It’s kind of a standard practice. Where do you cross the line here? I don’t know. It puts everyone in a very difficult position and it’s hard to tell where legitimacy ends and impropriety begins.”

Another adds: “This happened because small groups of people are basically trying to use their influence to shake down builders. It’s wrong.”

Is there a slippery slope here? Perhaps, but in my neighborhood? You gotta be kidding!

Questions:

1. Is there anything wrong with getting developers to improve one’s neighborhood? Does the improvement have to be related to the potential harm caused by the development?

2. What happens when a developer doesn’t go along to get along? Will the neighborhood association work hard to ensure that the developer doesn’t get his way?

3. Do city ethics codes deal with this situation? Do any ethics codes deal with this situation?

Sources: St. Petersburg Times, June 23, 2007; Tampa Tribune, June 23, 2007.